Fairings have been recovered. We expect recovery will be good enough to start regularly reusing them in the first six months of next year.
Quote from: speedevil on 12/16/2017 03:22 pmThis seems unlikely.The rate of production for F9S2 and D2 is an order of magnitude slower at the moment than would be required to do that over one year.It also puts a massive workforce into building S2s...There is a risk in trying to rush a massive pre-prepared stock of equipment, at least initially this strategy would require probably more investment than continuing on at the existing pace and moving most of the people working on the first stage over.What you say makes sense, but it doesn't seem to agree with what Elon said in September.Spacifically, Elon said:Quote"So then getting back to the question of how do we pay for this system, this is really quite a profound — I won't call it breakthrough, but realization that if we can build a system that cannibalizes our own products, makes our own products redundant, then all of the resources, which are quite enormous, that are used for Falcon 9, Heavy, and Dragon, can be applied to one system.Some of our customers are conservative and they want to see BFR fly several times before they're comfortable launching in it, so what we plan to do is to build ahead, and have a stock of Falcon 9 and Dragon vehicles, so that customers can be comfortable if they want to use the old rocket, the old spacecraft, they can do that, we'll have a bunch in stock. But then all of our resources will then turn towards building BFR. And we believe that we can do this with the revenue we receive for launching satellites and for servicing the space station."(emphasis mine)The way I read this, Elon's intent is quite clear.If they were planning to build Falcon upper stages for many years, he would have said most of our resources will then turn towards building BFR, not all.
This seems unlikely.The rate of production for F9S2 and D2 is an order of magnitude slower at the moment than would be required to do that over one year.It also puts a massive workforce into building S2s...There is a risk in trying to rush a massive pre-prepared stock of equipment, at least initially this strategy would require probably more investment than continuing on at the existing pace and moving most of the people working on the first stage over.
"So then getting back to the question of how do we pay for this system, this is really quite a profound — I won't call it breakthrough, but realization that if we can build a system that cannibalizes our own products, makes our own products redundant, then all of the resources, which are quite enormous, that are used for Falcon 9, Heavy, and Dragon, can be applied to one system.Some of our customers are conservative and they want to see BFR fly several times before they're comfortable launching in it, so what we plan to do is to build ahead, and have a stock of Falcon 9 and Dragon vehicles, so that customers can be comfortable if they want to use the old rocket, the old spacecraft, they can do that, we'll have a bunch in stock. But then all of our resources will then turn towards building BFR. And we believe that we can do this with the revenue we receive for launching satellites and for servicing the space station."
Once the first test BFRs are complete, SpaceX can return to F9 production if needed, say if testing takes longer than anticipated.
I think testing of BFS/BFR will be VERY different from anything we have seen in rocketry. In case of expendable rockets, it is difficult to afford too many test flights before the first operational one. So, risk-taking is unavoidable. In contrast, BFX vechicles are designed for many flights. They are expensive to build, but cheap to test flight. It is difficult to afford to loose any of them, both in time and money. Therefore, I expect a very-very incremental test regime with many-many test flights.
Testing noise becomes rather more of an issue.A site that will put up with occasional booms and launches once every month or two may have a dramatically different view when you want to launch twice a day for a month.
Quote from: speedevil on 12/17/2017 11:45 amTesting noise becomes rather more of an issue.A site that will put up with occasional booms and launches once every month or two may have a dramatically different view when you want to launch twice a day for a month.Exactly. This issue probably mandate an off-shore launch/landing platform, as we saw in the P2P video, from the very beginning.
This only works well if rapid reuse actually works, and works well, the BFR/S can be constructed without cycle life and operational reliability issues, and the construction of BFR/S is sufficiently cheap and fast that it can be paid for with early Starlink revenues allowing rapid deployment of the full constellation.
So then getting back to the question of how do we pay for this system, this is really quite a profound — I won't call it breakthrough, but realization that if we can build a system that cannibalizes our own products, makes our own products redundant, then all of the resources, which are quite enormous, that are used for Falcon 9, Heavy, and Dragon, can be applied to one system.Some of our customers are conservative and they want to see BFR fly several times before they're comfortable launching in it, so what we plan to do is to build ahead, and have a stock of Falcon 9 and Dragon vehicles, so that customers can be comfortable if they want to use the old rocket, the old spacecraft, they can do that, we'll have a bunch in stock. But then all of our resources will then turn towards building BFR. And we believe that we can do this with the revenue we receive for launching satellites and for servicing the space station.
QuoteSome of our customers are conservative and they want to see BFR fly several times before they're comfortable launching in it, so what we plan to do is to build ahead, and have a stock of Falcon 9 and Dragon vehicles, so that customers can be comfortable if they want to use the old rocket, the old spacecraft, they can do that, we'll have a bunch in stock. But then all of our resources will then turn towards building BFR. And we believe that we can do this with the revenue we receive for launching satellites and for servicing the space station.
Some of our customers are conservative and they want to see BFR fly several times before they're comfortable launching in it, so what we plan to do is to build ahead, and have a stock of Falcon 9 and Dragon vehicles, so that customers can be comfortable if they want to use the old rocket, the old spacecraft, they can do that, we'll have a bunch in stock. But then all of our resources will then turn towards building BFR. And we believe that we can do this with the revenue we receive for launching satellites and for servicing the space station.
>>BFR is planned for 2022.It is not clear how many satellites starlink requires for a minimum constellation.>
limited service beginning in 2020 or 2021 once ~800 satellites have been placed in Low Earth Orbit
BFR is planned for 2022.
Quote from: speedevil on 12/17/2017 09:26 pmBFR is planned for 2022.To clarify, the first BFR Mars missions are planned for 2022.This would presumably require multiple BFR test launches starting at least a year before that, i.e. in 2021.
Quote from: Dave G on 12/17/2017 10:55 pmQuote from: speedevil on 12/17/2017 09:26 pmBFR is planned for 2022.To clarify, the first BFR Mars missions are planned for 2022.This would presumably require multiple BFR test launches starting at least a year before that, i.e. in 2021.Quite. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43920.msg1757581#msg1757581 - I did not want to go into full timings here, as I've done it in other threads.Depending on meeting timings, and development plan, BFR/S development and Starlink being initially operational may overlap, before the 2022 window.As mentioned upthread, Patricia Cooper, SpaceX’s VP of Satellite Government Affairs stated in October that initial operation may happen in 2020/21.If this happens, then the valuation of the company that manages starlink could get really quite large indeed, and the perceived risk of investment could be quite small.This would mean that >$5B of investment into Starlink, either in the form of shares, or selling bonds on future performance could have a minimal effect on ongoing revenue, and allow dramatic investment in BFR.At this time, if everything is going right, there may be flying hardware of some form (hoppers, BFS, depending). That investment could pay for several operational BFR/BFS and pads on an accelerated schedule.Even a strict reading where BFS/R development is only paid for by launches, if everything is going well, BFS could in principle be aiding with the launch campaign and getting revenue from that at the same time as testing. If BFR is actually delayed, and Starlink is not, Starlink operation before the 2024 window may be nearly a full constellation.It would be beyond odd if they have not considered various funding schemes for if BFR costs much more or less than expected to develop to a ready state, and if Starlink is delayed or not, and how the funding for these would be related.Reading the words "cannibalise our own products" to mean that is the only possible source of funding seems counter to everything being said before.I tried to put rough numbers on this, and came to the conclusion that constraining BFR/S flightrate in 2024 (manned mars date) to within two, perhaps three orders of magnitude is hard.If BFR/S actually gets to the point of being rapidly reusable so much changes so fast both from a costing of a Mars launch in 2022 point of view and an external investment point of view that depending on your choices you can get tanker launches costing $100M or $2M.Questions on here in 2022 could almost as easily be 'so, when will it really fly' or 'Where will the twentieth pad be'.
Don't see that they'd be a need for booster grasshopper equivelent. The three raptor BFS should test the key components shouldn't it?
Yeah, if you think the last 5 years were exciting...
April 8, 2016: First successful landing of Falcon 9 booster
Quote from: Dave G on 12/18/2017 12:36 pmApril 8, 2016: First successful landing of Falcon 9 boosterCorrection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_flight_20